Biden-era DOJ, FBI weighed campaign-finance probe of Sinema after party switch
Emails reviewed by The Post show federal investigators discussed possible FECA violations by the former senator months after she left the Democratic Party; the matter was not pursued and Sinema’s political status evolved thereafter.
Officials in President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice and the FBI weighed a criminal campaign-finance investigation into then-Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) in February 2024, more than a year after she announced her split from the Democratic Party, according to emails reviewed by The Post. The communications show that a prosecutor in the DOJ Criminal Division, a prosecutor in then-DC U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves’ office, and FBI agents in the Washington Field Office discussed whether to open a case under the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) against Sinema. Sinema’s chief of staff, Daniel Winkler, expressed concern that any probe could be pursued for partisan political reasons, including punishing the former senator for opposing the party-line push to scrap the Senate filibuster.
Over the following days, the discussions centered on whether to pursue a FECA inquiry in connection with Sinema’s campaign-finance spending. A prosecutor in Graves’ office and an assistant U.S. attorney spoke with FBI agents about taking up the matter. In one message, an FBI agent signaled an interest in the Sinema referral if it were assigned for investigation. The exchanges align with a broader pattern in which federal investigators considered politically sensitive cases in the wake of the Arctic Frost probes and other high-profile inquiries tied to the 2020 election environment. The conversations also touched on earlier attempts to involve the DOJ’s Public Integrity Section in a Sinema probe, a path that ultimately did not advance.
The Post’s reporting prompted responses from Sinema’s team and others familiar with the matter. Winkler said the line of inquiry appeared to be motivated by partisan concerns after Sinema chose to depart from the Democratic caucus. He argued that the investigation would amount to political retribution for Sinema’s stance on the filibuster. TheInternal debate within federal offices illustrates how the boundaries between legitimate oversight and political optics can blur in high-profile cases.
In February 2024, a prosecutor in the Biden-appointed DC U.S. Attorney’s Office and FBI agents in the Washington Field Office discussed potential FECA violations connected to Sinema’s campaign. The discussions occurred roughly 14 months after she announced her party switch. The emails show that the groups considered whether there was enough basis to open a formal investigation, as well as how such a case would be handled within the DOJ and FBI. Ultimately, however, the officials chose not to move forward. By Feb. 9, 2024, the two investigators told colleagues they would pass on opening a FECA case after reviewing open-source information, FEC filings, and FBI holdings without finding a sufficient basis for action.
Aloi and Giardina ultimately decided not to pursue a formal investigation on Feb. 9, eight days after The Post’s initial report about Sinema’s campaign-finance spending sparked the federal dialogue. Both left their posts in the ensuing months: Aloi was demoted in February and departed the U.S. Attorney’s Office, while Giardina and Blaire Toleman were later removed from their roles in the FBI’s Washington Field Office. The FBI leadership changes occurred within the broader reshaping of personnel tied to high-profile investigations, including the Arctic Frost inquiries that examined a wide range of groups and individuals linked to 2020 election controversies.
Sinema ultimately did not seek re-election as a Democrat, choosing instead to run as an Independent. She was succeeded in the Senate by Democrat Ruben Gallego. The spending patterns cited in federal filings—nearly $797,000 on hotels, a new car, and concert tickets, plus about $266,000 on security costs—outpaced her campaign fundraising by roughly $200,000 in 2023, according to the FEC records The Post examined.
Commentary from former prosecutors reflected how rare it is for criminal FECA charges to be pursued against sitting members of Congress. Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said the threshold is high, and that new cases in this area are generally only pursued in situations resembling a serious fraud scheme. He noted that personal expenses are tightly restricted under FECA, with travel, clothing, and meals subject to strict rules. Rahmani acknowledged that political considerations can influence investigations but stressed the importance of prosecutorial standards and best practices. The broader question raised by the emails is how such inquiries are initiated and justified, particularly when political status can be a factor in decision-making.
The correspondence also shows Grassley’s office continuing to review the matter. Grassley, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, had obtained the FBI and DOJ communications through whistleblower disclosures, underscoring congressional interest in how the executive branch handles potential FECA violations. The evolving narrative highlights ongoing tensions between enforcing campaign-finance law and avoiding the appearance of political retribution in a highly partisan environment. Reached for comment, spokesmen for the DOJ, FBI, and the Sinema team did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The documents at issue trace a discrete thread of inquiry that began with a February 2024 news report about Sinema’s security spending and personal expenditures during her campaign. They reveal how prosecutors and agents weighed whether the facts justified a formal culpability inquiry under FECA, and how the decision ultimately settled into a deferment rather than an indictment or formal investigation. The case remains a point of reference in discussions about the intersection of campaign-finance law, partisan politics, and the boundaries of federal enforcement.
Grassley’s office continues to monitor the matter for potential implications on future investigations and on how such inquiries are managed in politically charged contexts. For Sinema, the episode is part of a longer arc that culminated in her departure from the party and the transition to an Independent seat, followed by Ruben Gallego’s election to the Senate. The episode also underscores the ongoing public interest in how campaign-finance rules are applied to lawmakers and how political actions can influence the optics and dynamics of federal investigations.